The religion of evolution is so entrenched for some that they get pretty wacky when you blaspheme against it, as the new Answers in Genesis Creation Museum is doing.
From WJAC TV:
Edwin Kagin, who participated in a protest outside the museum on this opening day, said teaching children that science supports the Bible rather than evolution "is a form of child abuse" and "terrorism" that could plunge America into a new dark age.
That's quite a closed-minded and intellectually obtuse statement. Pretty much undermines his credibility on anything he'd have to say.
Some appear willing to take their faith in evolution even farther:
Carl Kerby, founding director of Answers in Genesis, which built the museum, said there already have been death threats and incidents of vandalism.
He said one museum opponent asked on the protesters' Web site if he should bring a gun to the opening day rally.
All this hubbub really just goes to prove the need for getting some reason back into science. And it shows that the Creation Museum is already doing such a good job that it has evolution disciples quaking in their boots.
25 comments:
I have but one question for you.
WERE YOU THERE!!!
Obviously not!
ignorance, it's an epidemic
I was one of those at the protest. I don't know what you are talking about with guns and such--it was a very peaceful protest and I saw no threats of violence whatsoever--even when we were being harrassed by friends of the 'museium'.
I seriously do have a problem with the idea of knocking the very foundation of science education out from under our kids feet in favor of following a book that what written in a pre-scientific age. You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't mean you can call it science.
Mr. Kirby is mistaken. No death threats came from our group, and there have been no incidents of vandalism at the museum. No one on the official Rally For Reason web site ever suggested bringing a gun -- we made certain to warn attendees to NOT bring weapons of any kind, nor illegal drugs, not even pets.
On the contrary, our people were not only harassed by people wandering over from the museum, but were driving by all the previous night looking for an opportunity to destroy the site preparations already set up. Fortunately, organizers had arranged for Boone County Sheriffs to protect our people.
I believe it is Mr. Kirby and this blog that lack all credibility, if only for the above. The worn-out canard that "evolution is a religion" simply makes no sense--it is not religious by definition--it is supported by evidence, and makes no supernatural claims. Information is not revealed, but is readily available to anyone. The more one studies science, the more one comprehends and corroborates previous findings. This, in contrast to religious belief, which becomes more confused and arbitrary as scripture is studied -- as a literal work, none of it stands up to scrutiny.
-Z
Mikayla: Genesis was written around the height of Egyptian civilization by a man educated in the courts of the pharaoh. If you know anything about the engineering feats of ancient Egypt, you'd understand that they were pretty advanced. Even now, in the age of rocket science, scientists still wonder how they did what they did with the tools they had.
And if you'd gone inside and looked around with an open mind, instead of one glued shut by the religion of evolution, you'd realize that it contains every bit of the science as any other museum.
While evolutionists view scientific evidence through the lens of a presupposition that God didn't create the universe according to the Genesis account, creation scientists view the same scientific evidence through the lens of a presupposition that God DID do what he said in Genesis.
The philosophy of "naturalism" is often confused with "science." They aren't the same.
Anonymous: Perhaps it was someone else opposed to the museum who doesn't belong to your group.
As for evolution being a religion, one of the definitions of "religion" is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Even the definition "the service and worship of God or the supernatural" can apply to evolution, since in order for the universe to have come about without an intelligent designer, many laws of physics would have to be violated (how do you have effect without cause; how do you get stars to form when entropy causes everything to tend toward disorder; how do you get life from lifeless materials; how do you solve the problem of irreducible complexity). Therefore there has to be some kind of supernatural influence even for atheistic evolution to occur, since the claims of evolution cannot occur according to the laws of nature.
So as you see, evolution simply cannot stand up to the test of scrutiny. Which is why the Creation Museum scares evolution disciples so much.
Sorry again, Bob. Science doesn't need faith. It has evidence. You leave out one crucial element that defines religion, and that is the (unfounded) belief in supernatural things. Science doesn't deal with supernatural things.
The assertion that there was any vandalism or any death threats remains completely unfounded. It is a lie.
-Z
Sorry, Anonymous 5:30. Evolution "science" does require faith. Does anyone have pictures or video showing its assertions to have happened? Do we have a written record of what happened? Of course not. So scientists look at the evidence and form a hypothesis based on what that evidence seems to indicate, according to their set of presuppositions, or worldview.
And since materialism and naturalism (what we commonly call "evolution) requires blatant and repeated violations of some rather basic natural laws, then even evolution requires a super-natural influence (just can't call it God, though).
Another worn-out old sock, Bob. The "you weren't there" argument is intellectually insulting. How would you like it if I were to ask how it is you know who your father is? "Were you there?" Are you quite certain your mother isn't just maintaining a polite fiction for the sake of harmony? Working from pre-conceived conclusions, such as Biblical authority, are not helpful. You must follow the evidence. For the above examlple, DNA comparison would provide fairly straightforward evidence.
Scientists look at the evidence and use that to lead them to answers. The evidence shows that the earth is several billion years old, and that dinosaurs went extinct long before the appearance of humans or our predecessors, that populations of species change over time and become new species, according to their ability to adapt and survive. The strength of science is that as new data and new technology become available, conclusions may be confirmed or they may be modified, but conclusions are based on evidence. In contrast, AiG's method is to start with a conclusion and then cherry-pick evidence or invent evidence to support it. Or just simply lie. If the facts don't fit the faith, they discard the facts.
The evidence shows that it is entirely possible that life ultimately came from dirt. The difference is, this is extremely old dirt, and divine intervention wasn't required. Just chemistry.
-Z
Anonymous 9:12 - Just because a truth is old doesn't mean it isn't true.
You say working from preconceived notions such as the Bible aren't helpful, but apparently working from a preconceived notion that that there is no God, or that the universe is billions of year old, or that evolution is true...that is helpful? Come on, you don't really believe in such a double-standard, do you?
How do evolution scientists come to the conclusion they do? They assume the earth is very old, and that God doesn't exist, and interpret the evidence in light of that preconceived-conceived notion. How can a scientist look at faulty radiometric dating evidence that shows lava that we know from observation is only 26 years old, but the dating technique says it's 2.8 billion years old, and still believe that dating method is accurate? It's called a blind faith in their religion of evolution.
If scientists followed the evidence where it led, as you assert, they'd acknowledge that the scientific methods they've used to theorize that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is extremely unreliable, and would look for something else. But they don't. To completely ignore evidence that's right in front of you (not just interpreting a piece of evidence, but the evidence itself) goes well beyond any blind faith ascribed to Christianity.
Finally, if life from dirt were possible, there'd be some scientific principle(s) to back that up, right? But there isn't a single shred of scientific evidence to support it. In fact, every bit of scientific evidence says it just can't happen. But evolutionists throw in the "magic dust" of billions of years and abra cadabra: life.
Uh huh. Pull my other leg.
The philosophy of naturalism masquerading as science still isn't science. You can put perfume on a pig, but it's still a pig.
Bob-
You are extraordinarily confused in your use of "materialism" and "naturalism" in reference to evolution. Natural processes aren't "ism's" and you don't get to redefine the language to suit your particular "-ism."
For species to evolve and multiply does not require suspension of physical laws, but an understanding of them. It is a fact that mutations occur during genetic replication, that duplication occurs, that these genetic changes eventually show up as phenotypic changes, that the accumulation of these changes eventually results in new species. This has all been observed and recorded and corroborated, though ignorant fools refuse to even acknowledge it.
-Z
Anonymous 9:27 - No sir, it is you who are confused. Natural processes aren't "isms" as you say, but the understanding and interpretation of those processes certainly can be.
In the case of naturalism and materialism, this is essentially looking at the evidence (be it an object or a process) and concluding that it could only have come about through spontaneous non-supernatural causes.
How does the naturalist KNOW things didn't have any supernatural influence? They don't; you can't know for sure there was no supernatural influence. You may wish very badly there was no supernatural influence, and you may assume that because there is no manufacturing label on a rock or tree that there was no supernatural influence in its creation, but you can't know that.
As for genetic mutations, these involve a corruption of genetic information, or a loss of genetic information. The generation of new genetic information has never been observed or documented; it's only something evolutionists have theorized is possible.
Both naturalism and materialism violate the law of entropy; while we observe things tending toward a disorganized state, naturalists assume disorganized things get more organized (stars, planets, organisms)--a violation of observable scientific principle.
Evolution, naturalism and materialism aren't science; they are a religious philosophy that assumes there was no Creator.
Going to bed now. Goodnight!
Bob,
You continue to make the mistake that scientists begin with preconceived ideas. You're going to have to start paying attention if you expect to learn anything.
Science doesn't say anything about god at all. By claiming that science is atheistic, you sound quite foolish. The fact that science doesn't deal with supernatural claims doesn't make it atheistic. Algebra doesn't say anything about god either, so is algebra an atheist plot? Plumbing doesn't say anything about god--behold another atheist conspiracy! It's a stupid argument, Bob--don't insult us by trying to defend it.
-Z
Anonymous 9:36 - I said I was going to bed, but I'll give you this one final lesson for the day, so try sleeping on it.
You're fooling yourself to an embarrassing degree if you think evolutionary scientists don't approach science with preconceived ideas. Everyone does (but not everyone fools themselves into thinking they don't).
You claim science doesn't say anything about God. There is some truth in that. But an examination of science can lend credibility to the claim that there is a God, or the claim that there isn't a God. But it can't prove either one with certainty.
However, atheistic scientists say there is no God--and call their assumption "science." Atheistic scientist say supernatural things can't happen (e.g. things that don't conform to the natural laws as we usually see them played out in the universe) because there is no supernatural force to cause them.
Naturalism purports to be science when it is nothing but an idea, a philosophy, a supposition.
If you can ever reach the point where you grasp the difference between naturalism and science--and understand that what is passing itself off as science today is in fact naturalism--the light bulb will finally come on for you.
In the meantime, goodnight.
Bob wrote:
"You're fooling yourself to an embarrassing degree if you think evolutionary scientists don't approach science with preconceived ideas. Everyone does (but not everyone fools themselves into thinking they don't). "
Of course scientists have preconceived notions, but scientific inquiry goes a long way into bringing out those notions and correcting them if necessary.
Darwin even started out with a preconception that species were immutable, but came away from his investigations with that preconceive notion corrected. Science admits mistakes and corrects itself--that is a major difference between science and fundamentalist religion.
Mikayla: The pursuit of science does admit its mistakes and correct itself. However, evolution scientist will only do this within the parameters of believing their overall theory of evolution is still intact.
Otherwise, why would they see that radiometric dating gives wildly erroneous readings (a 26 year old lava flow dated to 2.8 million years; an organism that is STILL ALIVE being C14 dated to thousands of years old; clinging to theories such as the Big Bang and how stars form when these theories violate the law of causation and the laws of physics).
They refuse to admit these are wrong...because if they did, then everything they have to support their preconceived notion of materialism and naturalism would vanish.
So even viewing both evolutionists and creation scientists together objectively, evolutionists are far worse than creationists. When creationists develop a theory that is found to be unworkable according to science and the framework of the Bible, they abandon it.
When naturalists develop a theory that is found to be unworkable according to science (e.g. radiometric dating, star formation, etc.), they just ignore the contrary findings and pretend they don't exist.
Bob said:
"Otherwise, why would they see that radiometric dating gives wildly erroneous readings (a 26 year old lava flow dated to 2.8 million years; an organism that is STILL ALIVE being C14 dated to thousands of years old; clinging to theories such as the Big Bang and how stars form when these theories violate the law of causation and the laws of physics)."
Would you mind providing your sources to back up these claims? There could have been human error involved if the case with the lava flow is legit, but I really have no clue what you are talking about with the current cosmological theory violating the laws of causation and physics. As far as I can tell it is the creationists that are shunning proven evidence and relying solely on blind faith in an old book.
Since we are on the topic of evidence and objectivity, what evidence do you know of that points to accuracy of creation science as a good framework for how the world came to be?
That's a good question, Mikayla. Evolutionists don't want you to know about the unreliability of radiometric dating because it proves the emperor has no clothes.
Radiometric dating relies on many assumptions that certain things are true, in order to believe in the readings you obtain. These assumptions would be difficult to rely on for a few years, much less millions or billions of years (you'll understand these assumptions better after reading some of the material below).
If you read how radiometric dating works, and examine the multiple documented failures of radiometric dating, and do so with an objective mind, I think you'll agree that it's the atheists/evolutionists who are shunning evidence.
Regards your question about the accuracy of creation science as a good framework for how the world to be...very difficult to do in 1000 words or less. If nothing else, simply the overwhelming problems of the universe's origins without an intelligent designer, and the entirety of evidence that points toward a designer.
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I used to believe in vast ages and evolution. But when I began to examine the evidence (not just accept what I was being told by pop culture), I found that not only were there serious, insurmountable problems with these claims, but creation scientist actually had scientifically plausible theories for the universe that were in harmony with what the Bible says. In short, I followed the evidence...and it points much more strongly to an intelligent designer.
Here are a few references dealing with radiometric dating, the assumptions required in order to "trust" its results, how it works, and some examples of obviously bad readings:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/dating.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_as_r01
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-radioactive.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/radiodating.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/dating.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/radiometric.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/decay_rate.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/canyon.asp
Sorry, Mikayla, I forgot to address that "current cosmological theory violating the laws of causation and physics" point you brought up.
Real quickly, because I have an appointment, the Big Bang violates natural law because it could have no cause. Every effect has a cause. If there was no universe before the Big Bang, what existed to cause it?
Also, astrophysicists believe that stars essentially formed out of loose gas and cosmic dust after the Big Bang, that somehow managed to coalesce and come together, achieve nuclear fusion and start burning. Where else in nature do you see loose-knit matter organize into a higher form? Where else do you see dust floating around loosely form itself into organized matter? It doesn't. The law of entropy, which we observe every day, says organized things tend to break down, not the other way around. So according to the laws of nature, stars and planets can't form. But they could with a "supernatural" force with the power to suspend and operate outside the natural laws of the universe. The prime candidate for such a force is God; since he created everything (including the universe and the natural laws he set in place to govern it), he has authority over and exists independent of the laws of nature.
Hope that helps!
All of your sources come from AIG? Sorry I don't consider them to be any type of authority. If that is all the better you can do--throwing out claims and using AIG to back them up--I see no point in continuing this.
Mikayla, if you'll look again you'll see there are some that aren't from AIG. Besides, just because you don't like AIG doesn't mean the information is incorrect.
If you're not afraid of considering all the facts, I'd encourage you to read all the references I posted on radiometric dating--and others, too--and make your own decision as to whether radiometric dating is a reliable tool.
Mikayla, Anonymous,
Your arguments are well taken, but they will fall on deaf ears. Mr. Ellis derives all of his information from Answers In Genesis, whose only goal is to selectively present data that presumes to undercut evolution. Mr. Ellis needs that to sustain his purpose for living. Allow him that...trying to change is mind will be like trying to convince a blind man that the sky is blue. Instead, concentrate on opening the eyes of the youth...they are largely still inquisitive and even those constrained by the likes of Mr. Ellis can eventually make up their own minds...give them the benefit of your wisdom and information.
Christopher, I once believed in evolution and vast ages...until I examined the evidence. My mind was open enough to examine the evidence, which apparently yours isn't. You see an idea you don't like and an organization you don't like, and you automatically write it off without even examining the facts.
I don't know whether facing the fact of being wrong is too much for you, or facing the fact that there is a God to be accountable to is to much for you.
I just want to know the truth, wherever it takes me. That's the sad and ironic thing about blind devotees to evolution: they claim other folks are closed minded and blind, when it's actually they who are afraid to look at the facts.
That's why some silly people are freaking out, signing petitions and protesting in front of the Creation Museum. Because they're terrified of being proven wrong. Terrified that people will examine the evidence--instead of taking what they've been spoon-fed by pop culture--and realize they're wrong.
Go ahead, Christopher, believe what you want; it's only you who'll have to deal with the consequences someday. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Thanks Chris. I figure I won't change Bob's mind, but I can at least challange him to think. I don't mind the challange to think myself, and I may even check out some of his sources later when I have time. I don't really expect to find anything of value there, but I try to keep an open mind.
In the meantime, if you are interested in also challanging your own views Bob, here is a web page giving very consise answers from evolutionists to just about every single creationist argument. Just in case you are curious what the other side has to say.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Bob said:
"Christopher, I once believed in evolution and vast ages...until I examined the evidence. My mind was open enough to examine the evidence, which apparently yours isn't."
Interesting that you should say that--I was once a convinced creationist, mainly due to the fact that I was exposed to the young earth creationist arguments before I'd even had the chance to learn of the Theory of Evolution is school. I regret this put back my science education a great deal though I have always had a great deal of interest in science. It was not until I was in my older teens and low 20's that I finally got ahold of of some of the real facts about evolutionary theory--and what I found blew all the creationist debunking of evolution right out of the water. So it would really take some humdinger of creationist evidence to cause me to disregard the mountains of evidence to evolution and pull me back to your side again.
So, what was it specifically that finally convinced you the world must have been created literally as described in the Bible?
Mikalya, it's not surprising that you left your creationist origins; up until a few decades ago, there wasn't any serious creation science material available, and it's only become widely available in the last 10 years or so--and even in the last 10 years, its exposure is still only a fraction of the opposing view--the media and intelligentsia prevent any exposure to creation science they can, and anything they can't prevent, they marginalize. Also, most people who believe in creation actually do a lousy job of passing on that information to others; too afraid of being called an unscientific kook, I guess.
Your verbiage tells me you are still making the mistake of thinking that just because creation science doesn't limit itself to naturalistic causes, it isn't science. Creation scientists examine the same evidence that atheists do, and for the most part examine it along the same scientific principles as atheists. The only difference is that the creationist allows for supernatural causation for some key events in history (creation itself, and the global flood, which creation scientists believe is largely responsible for most fossils and the geology we see today).
I don't think there is one single thing that convinced me creation is true. More a preponderance of evidence, as they say in the legal field. When you add everything up, naturalism and materialism are left wanting, while creation is an infinitely better fit with the evidence available. Here are a few things (I've already mentioned many of them): the Big Bang could have no cause, so how could it happen--it violates the laws of nature...which materialists claim is the only mechanism available; stars and planets can't form according to the laws of physics and nature; life can't come from lifelessness according to scientific observation and experimentation; there is no solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old, beyond radiometric dating which relies on unverifiable assumptions and has been proven to be terribly unreliable, and the geologic column which is a theoretical construct supported by circular reasoning; creation science theory regarding why geology appears as it does fits much more reliably with the evidence available; irreducible complexity proves evolution is an unviable mechanism for biological change; the production of new genetic information has never been observed in an organism; the biological complexity of organisms, be it the human eye or human sexuality or even the human hair, is such that even the billions of years allowed by atheists wouldn't be enough to bring about such complexity--and again we touch on the problem of irreducible complexity.
Even evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle realizes the odds of the universe coming out the way it has through chance are ludicrously low.
In the end, it comes down to the fact that the evidence dictates that the universe is far too complex to have organized through random chance, no matter how much "billion year" magic dust you throw in. The only rational conclusion is that there was an intelligent designer.
And finally, and certainly more of a faith issue, I've come to know God in a more personal way (what is called being "born again") and in doing so I've come to know his character better. I've read his Bible cover to cover and found that while there are many things in it I don't understand, I haven't come across a single thing that can be verified as false or inaccurate. So I think I can trust him on the creation account; if he exists in the first place, then certainly he was there at the beginning as he said, and he has the power to do the things he said, and he has no reason to lie about them. So I believe him. It isn't a blind faith (if I ever had reason to believe it was all a lie, I'd drop Christianity in a heartbeat and go live it up), but a faith based on all the reliable evidence I've seen...and a trust in him for the things I don't yet understand.
Post a Comment